homosexuality and where it stands morally

[emprworm]

First of all Ace, it is hard for me to accurately represent what you are saying because you go back and forth so much.

DISCRIMINATION is DIFFERENT than EXCLUSION.

i never made any dilineation between these. I dont see any difference whatsoever in a group like MENSA forbidding people with an IQ less than 150 as nothing more than discrimination. Call it exclusion, whatever, I really dont care what english word you ascribe to the act of forbidding someone entrance into your club based upon their genes (in the case of MENSA, someone's IQ).

If Acelethal wants to apply his subjective morality to MENSA forbidding someone and call it "acceptable exclusion based upon genetics" and then look at a Catholic School forbidding a protestant and call it "acceptable exclusion based on religion" and then look at the NAACP and call it "acceptable exclusion based upon race" and then look at the KKK and call it "unacceptable DISCRIMINATION", then that is ACELETHALS subjective moral views. Unfortunately for Acelethal, it is unacceptable for any government to enforce one mans morality. If Acelethal thinks one version of exclusion is more acceptable than another, while others who Ace excludes are unhappy with his exclusions, then Ace becomes nothing more than a discriminator himself. This is how I perceive your argument (and I admit I am having a difficult time because you keep changing it)

Acelethal To Group A: "You are simply excluding. Thats ok. My moral view permits you to exclude those who are not as smart as you. And my moral view furthermore should be objective and apply to everyone"

Acelethal to Group B: "You are discriminating. Unacceptable. My moral view does not like your reasons for exclusion. Because your reasons for this exclusion do not conform to my morals, you are therefore DISCRIMINATING. And my moral view furthermore should be objective and apply to everyone. Your nonconformity to my moral view is a crime."

DISCRIMINATION is BASED ON PREJUDICE.

big deal. prejudice is not a crime.

restrictions on discrimination apply to anything receiving public funds. Obviously it is wrong for any government, funded by taxpaying citizens, to pay for any group- girlscouts or KKK- that exludes someone for any reason. No taxpaying man should be forced to fund a group that excludes men (like the girlscouts). Therefore, the girlscouts receive no public funding. Same with the KKK. Both are fully legal (and should be).

Discrimination is restricted within businesses. You cannot set up a business that discriminates. Again, the same principle applies. The government (funded by taxpayers) grants licesnes to practice business. Any for-profit business is fully banned from discriminating on any level (such as your insurance example). I SUPPORT THIS. Again, in your debating, you continually shift positions. Your original argument was banning a nonviolent KKK ad

from a newspaper. Now you shift positions again and start arguing about discrimination in the workforce. The problem with that Ace, is that I have no argument with you there. Dont shift your argument here. We are not arguing about discrimination in the workplace. We are not arguing about discrimination in public tax-funded venues. I fully agree with both of those.

We are arguing about your position that certain "exclusion" groups (as you call them) should be allowed to express their opinion while others should be forcibly silenced. Dont continually shift the argument.

EXCLUSION is NOT BASED ON PREJUDICE. EXCLUSION is done with an UNPREJUDICED OBJECTIVE in mind.

only in your subjective definition. When an atheist organization forbids a Christian preacher to join their group and speak at their conferences, this is discrimination. In your mind, you see discrimination as some kind of "evil" thing. It is not evil. Too many people are brainwashed in todays liberal-minded society to believe that all stereotypes and all discrimination is evil. This is, of course, rediculous.

When I see a police officer in uniform, I immediately "stereo type" this person. Without knowing anything about him, I have feelings of trust, security, and expectations put on him. And rightly so!! Such stereo-typing is good and appropriate.

Well EXCUUUUUUUUUSE ME for not tolerating violence and discrimination.

i dont tolerate violence either. Violent crime must be punished. I also dont tolerate the idea that opinions should be banned from being voiced simply because someone else thinks will "result" in violence. These are two different things. You are practicing immense discrimination. Everyone who discriminates has their own little "justification" and 'special definitions' they use. in your case, you discriminate by allowing some groups to exist and banning others. You justify your discrimination with this notion of 'acceptable exclusion' which all comes down to your subjective morality that not everyone shares. Like all who discriminate, they have their own subjective morality that 'labels' different groups as acceptable and unacceptable. You are doing the exact same thing. I let all groups speak. That is because I do not impose my morals on others.

Shame on me for not reckognizing that everyone has a right to beat, murder, and discriminate those different them, or at least discriminate against them.

this is irrelevant. You are committing a gross strawman argument. What is a strawman? To those reading this, go here for a definition: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm

What you do (and this is the second time you've done this in your response), is build up a strawman - in this case saying you dont believe people should beat, and murder- and then you knock this argument down. Well that is irrelevant because like you, I too do not think people should beat and murder anyone. This is poor arguing because you are using fallicious tactics. Then you nicely "insert" the word discrimination in there. Discriminating does not necessitate beating and murdering.

What you're suggesting would allow employers to pay employees differently based on their own stupid prejudice.

lol, my dear friend Ace. This is a gross red herring fallacy.

I said nothing...absolutely nothing about workplace discrimination. I think all such discrimination should be rightly outlawed. But that is not even the subject...unless you are changing it.

more on the red herring fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

I mean, what does she care what a 90%-water bipedal being pays her?

LOL! I see you're using my terminology. Its funny eh? I like to say "bipedal anthropod". he he :)

[Anathema]

if that is so, and stating publicly that brown eyed people are inferior is NOT punishable, then your government is nothing more than an irrational hypocritcial mass of bigots granting special rights to a group of people and discriminating against everyone else. When you DISCRIMINATE as to what DISCRIMINATING statements are allowed and what aren't, then you are no better than the discriminating pigs that you are fighting to stop discriminating against.

I didn't say that saying brown eyed peeps are inferiror isn't punishable. Read my post dammit >:(

You can't sue everybody who makes a racist statement. For that we would need a lot more judges. But if a well known person like an imam makes such a statement there would and should be a trial.

[VigilVirus]

Ace, when you say that you want discrimination made illegal - that would mean all kinds of discrimination, be more specific next time.

Well EXCUUUUUUUUUSE ME for not tolerating violence and discrimination. Shame on me for not reckognizing that everyone has a right to beat, murder, and discriminate those different them, or at least discriminate against them.

Everyone has a right to discriminate as a human being - it is the right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Now, when it crossed the borders of violence - it becomes a crime. But before that - it is just an expression of opinion, which you cannot take away. That would be controlling people's minds - and that is one of the worst crimes you can commit.

I'm willing to bet that you yourself discriminate on daily basis - don't deny it, it's pretty obvious - everyone does it. So how can you say that discrimination should be made illegal if it's a big part of everyone's life

[emprworm]

didn't say that saying brown eyed peeps are inferiror isn't punishable. Read my post dammit

You can't sue everybody who makes a racist statement. For that we would need a lot more judges. But if a well known person like an imam makes such a statement there would and should be a trial.

well now Earthnuker you are punishing just the 'well-known' people? So you are discriminating against people based upon their fame. As an individual who just happens to be well-known, my defense would be that my fame should be irrelevant to this personal charge against me.

"Look, Judge. All those other people going unpunished for saying similar things. Why do you punish me simply because more people know me?" That is gross discrimination in itself. Any judge that would practice such would be a judge of horrible dishonor.

[SurlyPIG]

DISCRIMINATION is DIFFERENT than EXCLUSION.

i never made any dilineation between these.

Well I did. That is the difference between our arguements. I've said this numerous times, now, and I'm sick of answering it. Just read back to my last post if you still think I'm "constantly switching sides", because, in fact, I am speaking about two distinctly different principles. If you see them as the same, read the definitions again. I'll admit they are similar, but if you truly understand what a prejudice is (pre-judicial, pre-judgement), you'll know what I'm talking about.

I dont see any difference whatsoever in a group like MENSA forbidding people with an IQ less than 150 as nothing more than discrimination. Call it exclusion, whatever, I really dont care what english word you ascribe to the act of forbidding someone entrance into your club based upon their genes (in the case of MENSA, someone's IQ).

Well I did make a distinction. And IQ isn't genetic. Once can increase their IQ to quite a large degree. I'm not saying Forest Gump could become Stephen Hawking but somewhere in the middle is very possible.

If Acelethal thinks one version of exclusion is more acceptable than another, while others who Ace excludes are unhappy with his exclusions, then Ace becomes nothing more than a discriminator himself. This is how I perceive your argument (and I admit I am having a difficult time because you keep changing it)

Again you don't even read my post. For the last time, I think the NAACP SHOULD let people of ALL race join. You seem to believe that white people can't care about anybody but themselves. If that were true there'd still be slavery in your country.

prejudice is not a crime.

I SAID THAT! Have you read even half of what I wrote? Of course prejudice isn't a crime, but my point is that discrimination should be. You must ban it all. You can't say "Discrimination in this group is okay, but in the work place its a no-no." That's even more selective than what I'm suggesting.

restrictions on discrimination apply to anything receiving public funds.

Ok then. My imaginary insurance company doesn't accept public funds, in fact it pays taxes so it's the other way around. In that case, it will continue to charge more for some drivers based on their race. While I'm at it I'll pay all my female employees 1/2 that of what I pay my male employees.

Discrimination is restricted within businesses. You cannot set up a business that discriminates. Again, the same principle applies. The government (funded by taxpayers) grants licesnes to practice business.

Actually I buy my own licesne. And the money I pay in taxes more than makes up for what the government had to pay in officing and paying the people who granted me my license. Because they come out at a net advantage, I am therefore not publicly funded. I want as little to do with the government as possible. (BTW you seem to think I believe this, which is the opposite of the truth - I'm just using it as an example of what can happen if you allow private discrimination of individuals.)

We are not arguing about discrimination in the workplace.

Last time I checked, PRIVATE enterprise what was your economy was based on. In this case, what's the difference between a private business and a private club? Clubs and charities often have to get liscences too, unless they are completely secretive, and none of your examples are.

When I see a police officer in uniform, I immediately "stereo type" this person. Without knowing anything about him, I have feelings of trust, security, and expectations put on him. And rightly so!! Such stereo-typing is good and appropriate.

That's because he takes an oath and its his job to do all of those things you just listed. All police officers recieve the same training and take the same oath, so in this case, they have distinct similarities that can appropreately assumed. However, you cannot make such a judgement about, say, an Asian person, because they take no oath and recieve no training on how to be an Asian.

What you do (and this is the second time you've done this in your response), is build up a strawman - in this case saying you dont believe people should beat, and murder- and then you knock this argument down. Well that is irrelevant because like you, I too do not think people should beat and murder anyone. This is poor arguing because you are using fallicious tactics.

You've done this too. I never said anything about prison or execution, yet a couple posts ago you mocked something I said by saying "YOUR OPINION DISCRIMINATES! JAIL! DEATH!" Practice what you preach. And I think that publicly advocating violence AND discrimination toward a certain group of people should fall under the same category, obviously not to the same degree. This means that the statements "Kill Jews today" and "Don't hire Jews, don't provide services to Jews" would both be forbidden.

I said nothing...absolutely nothing about workplace discrimination. I think all such discrimination should be rightly outlawed. But that is not even the subject...unless you are changing it.

I make no distinction between any kind of discrimination.

LOL! I see you're using my terminology. Its funny eh? I like to say "bipedal anthropod". he he :)

Yeah I was impersonating your arguement, from the other point of view. I mean, if that person doesn't care that I encourage people to treat her like garbage because she's a woman, why should she care if I pay her 1/2 the money that men earn? I mean, nobody's MAKING her work for me, are they? Just like nobody's forcing her to read my sexist book, listen to my public sexist remarks, or tolerate my sexist attitude. She can quit any time she wants to. (again, this is completely against what I believe, it's just an example ;))

[emprworm]

For the last time, I think the NAACP SHOULD let people of ALL race join.

and you want to criminalize it otherwise? I think people should do all kinds of things they dont do. Yet I'm not so intolerant I want to make it criminal just because they dont do what I think they should. Why do you continually want to impose your morality on everyone else? So tell me Ace, if we have a private group like the NAACP that only allows African-Americans, you want to make it criminal now?

Of course prejudice isn't a crime, but my point is that discrimination should be. You must ban it all.

then this very message board, under your imposing morality, would have to be criminal. I am making the empirical statment: "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DEVIATION AND PRACTICES OF SUCH ARE SINFUL." That is a discriminatory remark. One that I just made. I guess under your 'fair' system, I am now a criminal. Under your so-called "tolerance" this must be not only forbidden, but punishable by law. I just made this discriminatory remark (one that I actually believe) on a public forum similar to a newspaper. The physical location of these web servers are in Canada, I do believe. Its time you petitioned your legal authorities to have my posts and my account deleted. If you do anything less, you are inconsistent. Im serious. I seriously want you to follow through with your logic and have this board and/or my posts and account deleted. Do it Ace. I am dead serious. If you really believe what you are saying, you wont be a hypocrite and you will take action. If you are not a hypocrite, you will begin forcing your views on this board and this forum and have my account and my posts removed (if I was in Canada, I would ask that you try to have me arrested. But since I am not, I dont think that attempt would be succesful).

Last time I checked, PRIVATE enterprise what was your economy was based on.

and discrimination is illegal in for-profit business.

It is fully permissible in NON PROFIT organizations. Like I gave examples that you didn't comment on- a catholic school forbidding an atheist professor or a homosexual student. These are perfectly acceptable and should be under any fair and tolerant government. ONly in an intolerant slave society will you find censorship of opinion and hate directed at anyone who doesn't comply with the imposed "moral code" of society.

That's because he takes an oath and its his job to do all of those things you just listed. All police officers recieve the same training and take the same oath, so in this case, they have distinct similarities that can appropreately assumed. However, you cannot make such a judgement about, say, an Asian person, because they take no oath and recieve no training on how to be an Asian.

yes i can. i can make any assumption about any person I want. you dont have to like it, you dont have to listen to it. and any honorable government will protect my right to my opinion and my right to express it.

This means that the statements "Kill Jews today" and "Don't hire Jews, don't provide services to Jews" would both be forbidden.

you cannot threaten someone's life, but you can certainly say "dont give services to jews".

or "to my private club: dont give services to rich people"

or "atheists not allowed membership in my private club"

or "only natively born aboriginees allowed to enter my home"

all acceptable. A person who doesn't like it is simply intolerant.

[VigilVirus]

Sign on the door:

NO PSYCHOPATHIC MANIACS ALLOWED

Oh no! Discrimination!

Lol

[TMA_1]

GEESH!! intelligent people dont post a bunch of crap with only a few jewels of good information. Cool down the huge amount of writing. The point of discussion is to take all of your thoughts and put them into a small neat group. whoa geesh.lol

[SurlyPIG]

So tell me Ace, if we have a private group like the NAACP that only allows African-Americans, you want to make it criminal now?

Criminal? Hardly. I believe your country would call it a misdemeanor.

Actually come to think of it your country DOES criminalize individuals based on their race. People born in certain middle-eastern countries, no matter what their citizenship, are fingerprinted and photographed in your country, as of October. If my memory serves me right, if you were born in Sudan, Iran, Iraq, and I think Syria or Saudi Arabia, you're given the treatment of someone who just committed a felony. How's that for social justice? My friend's family (from Iran) cancelled their holiday to California this December because of that crap.

I am making the empirical statment: "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DEVIATION AND PRACTICES OF SUCH ARE SINFUL." That is a discriminatory remark. One that I just made. I guess under your 'fair' system, I am now a criminal.

First, the ideals I'm suggesting aren't in practice in my country, so that any attempt against you would be futile. What I'm getting it is a goal to shoot for; a societal ideal. Second, what you said doesn't in any way encourage people to act against homosexuals so it'd be ok under this system.

It is fully permissible in NON PROFIT organizations. Like I gave examples that you didn't comment on- a catholic school forbidding an atheist professor or a homosexual student. These are perfectly acceptable and should be under any fair and tolerant government.

This walks a fine line but it isn't discrimination...again, it's exclusion because the catholic school wants to teach the principles of the catholic religion, and to them, homosexuality is contrary to the principles of the catholic religion. And all teachers must be equipped to handle any catholic questions in a catholic school so refusing an atheist teacher is, barely, acceptable.

{off topic}Kinda funny you should mention a catholic school. Where I live, there are two public school boards: the Calgary Board of Education, and the Catholic Board of Education. Both of them are PUBLICLY FUNDED, which has always pissed me off because its total favoritism. Your provincial taxdollars go directly to BOTH school systems, and in trustee elections you would vote for your chosen candidate of one system but not the other. There's nothing wrong with a private religious school, but it's an outrage that the government funds such an organization. I mean, if it funds a catholic school board, it should fund every freakin' religious school system you can think of; Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Scientologist, athiest, WHATEVER! All or nothing, and 0 in between. It's not the place of a government to be that biased and selective. It's utterly ridiculas, even said bias should be out of public schools, so you can imagine how much it pisses me off. I don't know what the Catholic board's policy is on hiring but I know that you can't attend a catholic school if you aren't a member of the church or if you aren't baptized. But anyone and everyone can go to a public school...it's ridiculas, and I wish it's something my government would put and end to. And there was even a big ruckus in Toronto where a Catholic board refused a homosexual student from going to the prom. It went all the way to the supreme court, where they overruled the board's decision because the board was publicly funded, and the prom wasn't a religious event and wasn't even really affiliated with the school all that much.

i can. i can make any assumption about any person I want. you dont have to like it, you dont have to listen to it.

Of course you can. And you can even speak your assumption. But when you practice that assumption, or when you advocate the discrimination of Asian people based on your insignificant assumption, that's when it becomes illegal. And you probably wouldn't even be ticketed or anything, since you're just one guy and you have no power or influence. What I'm mainly proposing is things like this Islamic saint guy Earthnuker mentioned calling on all Muslims to make judgements on all homosexuals, or a high-ranking priest in the catholic church encouraging catholics to shoot abortion doctors, or pharmacists and drug store workers that sell contraception and things like that. You wouldn't arrest some crazy bum standing on a streetcorner saying "Aye buhleeve hohmohsexuals shud be duhported"

you cannot threaten someone's life, but you can certainly say "dont give services to jews".

Oh really? Then how come you can't do it? I mean, if you threaten it, obviously you intend to do it, right? Aren't threats illegal in your country. At a certain point, it stops being an opinion and starts being bigoted harassment. I don't see anything wrong with drawing this line if you can define it well enough.

[Acriku]

Actually come to think of it your country DOES criminalize individuals based on their race. People born in certain middle-eastern countries, no matter what their citizenship, are fingerprinted and photographed in your country, as of October. If my memory serves me right, if you were born in Sudan, Iran, Iraq, and I think Syria or Saudi Arabia, you're given the treatment of someone who just committed a felony. How's that for social justice? My friend's family (from Iran) cancelled their holiday to California this December because of that crap.

This is very necessary due to 09/11 and current issues with Iraq, and stop crying about it. Japanese had to go through this, even more so, and they are like everybody else today and stopped crying about it. Fact is, anyone tha is born in Sudan, Iran, and Iraq might have affiliations with terrorists, would you take the chance of them passing by without notice only to let them do whatever mischief they were told to do? It is very rational to do this, so stop crying.

[SurlyPIG]

Bigotry. Total bigotry. Bigoted that you would assume people from muslim countries are terrorists. Bigoted you would assume that they can't even change. My Friend's family moved out of Iran when she was FOUR! Even her brother, who was a freakin BABY when the left Iran, would have to be fingerprinted. They've lived here since then and they're all Canadian citizens.

And the Japanese internment was possibly the biggest social injustice performed by your government in the last century. My country did it too. But they RECKOGNIZED thier mistake and eventually payed the victims and their families compensation. Now history is repeating itself, courtesy of a man that probably couldn't even find those countries on an unlabeled map.

BTW - Nice signature ;D But this immorality outrages me 1100100%!

[Acriku]

hehe I like it too ;)

Alright, so it may be bigotry to you and a lot of others. But really, is the injustice greater than the risk? It is rational to think that if some terrorist is coming to America or leaving, he would be of Middle Eastern descent, especially with the current things going on and with 09/11. And taking fingerprints (whoopdiedoo)is nothing to cry about.

[emprworm]

First, the ideals I'm suggesting aren't in practice in my country, so that any attempt against you would be futile. What I'm getting it is a goal to shoot for; a societal ideal

LOL! You call your grossly discriminating propogation of forced morality an ideal? Hardly. YOu say that a Catholic school refusing an atheist professor is "barely" acceptable? LIsten to yourself! Listen to how you impose your morality on everyone else. To me it is pure bigotry that whenever Acelethal forbids someone its merely "exclusion" but when other people do it, it is "discrimination." LOL. Typical. So typical of someone always figuring out some slithery way to excuse themselves while condemning others for precisely the same actions. You have a nice little set of definitions for yourself- exclusion and discrimination. Unfortunately, this is your subjective definition and is not an objective one. By your own words, discrimination is 'exclusion' with reasons that violate your moral views. Well guess what? My moral views accept all forms of non-violent, non tax-funded exclusion and condemn all attempts to silence such things. Therefore, in my definition, exclusion = discrimination.

You have your definition, I have mine. Leave it at that and dont force the government to impose one moral view on everyone else.

But when you practice that assumption, or when you advocate the discrimination of Asian people based on your insignificant assumption, that's when it becomes illegal

there is nothing illegal in advocating that the US should shut its borders to Mexican Immigrants. I advocate this. This is discrimination by very definition. And I not only advocate that the US refuse mexican immigrants, but that existing ones who are here without Visa's and are not-citizens, be expelled back to Mexico and driven out.

Like that?

That is my opinion, and I will propogate it. Tastes nice eh? Discrimination is bitter indeed, but not illegal. And every time you want to silence someone, YOU are the one discriminating. YOU become the oppressor.

Actually come to think of it your country DOES criminalize individuals based on their race. People born in certain middle-eastern countries, no matter what their citizenship, are fingerprinted and photographed in your country, as of October.

they are not criminals, Ace. Taking a fingerprint doesn't mean you are a criminal. Documenting arabs is a good thing- however I do not believe you are accurate in saying that the US is doing it to all arab US citizens. Only the ones who are here on visa's. This is absolutely a good thing, and I take it one step further- they should be refused visas. Arabs from Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to visit here...PERIOD. I would have no problem putting this opinion in a newspaper too. Of course, you might be too intolerant and fragile to allow that opinion. Toughen up! Dont let all those weak-minded bigots dominate your society. If you cant handle an opinion PUBLICLY EXPRESSED that is outside your moral compass, you are weak indeed.

Refuse Arab Immigration.

Send illegal mexicans back to Mexico.

Homosexuality is an unnatural deviation!

Ahhh, the wonders of freedom of speech. Cherish it mates, cuz guys like Ace want to take it away!

(dont take any of my comments personally, Ace, its all in the spirit of debate)

[Anathema]

well now Earthnuker you are punishing just the 'well-known' people? So you are discriminating against people based upon their fame. As an individual who just happens to be well-known, my defense would be that my fame should be irrelevant to this personal charge against me.

"Look, Judge. All those other people going unpunished for saying similar things. Why do you punish me simply because more people know me?" That is gross discrimination in itself. Any judge that would practice such would be a judge of horrible dishonor.

LOL

"My defense would be that my fame should be irrelevant to this personal charge against me"

Exactly who was it that said the president of the US should be a moral example to anyone, and should thus be punished if he disgraced himself, in contrast to less known people who do the same thing? ::)

[emprworm]

Exactly who was it that said the president of the US should be a moral example to anyone, and should thus be punished if he disgraced himself, in contrast to less known people who do the same thing?

earthnuker, my dear friend. We punish people not by being bigoted and charging the person with a crime, but by public humiliation and abandonment. Remember my post about Amazon.com selling pedophillic materials? You cant throw amazon in jail, but you refuse to buy from them. Clinton committed crime however- he lied under a sworn deposition. However, his immoral actions with monica were not criminal since both were consenting adults. His punishment is not jail (except in the case of his lies under oath).

[Anathema]

But your society does not publish articles and broadcasts extra news flashes when Joe Smith does that. I suppose Bill Clinton has less right for privacy then Joe Smith. ::)

[emprworm]

privacy is not a right.

when you become a public figure, you give up your privacy.

freedom from harrassment is a right, but not privacy.

[Anathema]

Privacy is not a right in your country? I despise that. So legally, at your work, I can stand behind you while you sit at your computer and see what you type? And observe your every action, and publicise them? That's repugnant. In the Netherlands, at least, we have laws to protect our citisens against that sort of things.

[Acriku]

Oh right nice, I see. Earthnuker look at the difference of size between USA and Netherlands. Now wouldn't you think there'd be differences of governing, and society? :P

[Anathema]

Well, since the US has 15 times as much citizens then the Netherlands that would certainly make it hard to tell people to respect eachothers privacy wouldn't it?

[emprworm]

Privacy is not a right in your country? I despise that. So legally, at your work, I can stand behind you while you sit at your computer and see what you type? And observe your every action, and publicise them? That's repugnant. In the Netherlands, at least, we have laws to protect our citisens against that sort of things.

if you followed me around inside my work area, I would report you to management since you have no rights to the building. If you followed me around in public, not much I can do. That is not a crime. If you intimidated me while you followed me around, I would have you arrested for harrassment.

[Acriku]

Or we can take the stalker, beat him to the ground, make a citizen's arrest for harrassment and stalking, and bring him to the local department. That's what most of my friends would do hehe.

[SurlyPIG]

Alright, so it may be bigotry to you and a lot of others. But really, is the injustice greater than the risk? It is rational to think that if some terrorist is coming to America or leaving, he would be of Middle Eastern descent, especially with the current things going on and with 09/11. And taking fingerprints (whoopdiedoo)is nothing to cry about.

In your country you have the right to not be printed unless you commit a crime. Your bigoted government, under the pressure of your bigoted citizens, has taken this right away from people coming from those five countries I listed. This is EXACTLY like WWII. It's a matter of "security". Do you know how many Japanese spies there were in North America during WWII? NONE. NOT A SINGLE DAMN SPY. Thousands of Japanese, from west coast mostly, were stolen from and imprisoned like animals. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And don't bull shit me with terrorists statistics from different countries. That would be like deporting an entire state because of Timothy McVeigh. It sucks to be an Arab in your country right now - even if you're not a muslim like my Iranian friend. Man am I ever glad that sort of right-winged faschist racism isn't committed by my government.

LOL! You call your grossly discriminating propogation of forced morality an ideal? Hardly. YOu say that a Catholic school refusing an atheist professor is "barely" acceptable? LIsten to yourself! Listen to how you impose your morality on everyone else.

For the last time I clearly defined my system of logic and how I arrive at any judgement. If you can't see that, well, it says something about you.

there is nothing illegal in advocating that the US should shut its borders to Mexican Immigrants. I advocate this. This is discrimination by very definition. And I not only advocate that the US refuse mexican immigrants, but that existing ones who are here without Visa's and are not-citizens, be expelled back to Mexico and driven out.

Don't even get me started on your country's immigration laws. And the reason for exclusion is cultural preservation. Mass immigration does not allow for cultural preservation, thus it is forbidden. There are still legal and practiced ways to enter any country. Despite what the American public would like to think, not all immigrants run over the border illegally only to live on welfare and pan for money.

every time you want to silence someone, YOU are the one discriminating. YOU become the oppressor.

Nope. I become the protector of the rights of the minorities you are discriminating against.

they are not criminals, Ace. Taking a fingerprint doesn't mean you are a criminal.

Ok then, tell me emp, what would an ordinary, non-arab American have to do to get his prints on file? He'd have to commit a crime, wouldn't he? Arabic travellers have committed no crime at all, and there is no justification, let alone reasonable justification, for printing and photographing all of them.

Documenting arabs is a good thing- however I do not believe you are accurate in saying that the US is doing it to all arab US citizens. Only the ones who are here on visa's.

I suppose you think the Japanese internment was a "necessary security step". Though this is admittedly not as souvere, these acts are one in the same. Actually, this is worse. The whole of Japan declared war on your country. These terrorists are but a few of the citizens from any country. And what about citizens from other countries, hmm? What about my Iranian friend that hasn't even been overseas since she was four? She's a Canadian citizen, too. What on Earth would justify photographing and printing her? What possible ridiculas justification can you make for treating her and her family like ordinary criminals? "Hey, while you're at it, why not deport ALL arabs? Muslims too. Hey, I hear that lots of North Africans are Muslim. Hmm, it's kind of hard to tell the difference, better just deport ALL black people. Hell, I'm to freaking ignorant to tell the difference between a muslim and a hindu, lets deport them too!"

Where do you draw the line, emprworm? Do you draw the line at their imprisonment? Their deportation? Their execution? You tell me when it stops becoming a security step and when it starts becoming a crime against humanity.

This is absolutely a good thing, and I take it one step further- they should be refused visas. Arabs from Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to visit here...PERIOD.

Don't ask me why, but people from all over the world actually WANT to live in your country. Many actually WANT to learn english, get a job, pay taxes, and live as an American. I'll be damned if I know why, but that's the reality. There's no justification for labeling an entire populus as terrorists. Such a notion is utterly ridiculas. I see this as no different from slavery or the Japanese internment.

"Refuse Arab Immigration."

That's just bigoted...

"Send illegal mexicans back to Mexico."

Right. ILLEGAL - and nothing less.

"Homosexuality is an unnatural deviation!"

Do you really think anyone cares about that? I wouldn't. I mean, honestly, do you think Ellen Degenerace is gonna call you up and chew you out? Now, if you were a man of influence and you told everyone to beat up gays it'd be different...

(dont take any of my comments personally, Ace, its all in the spirit of debate)

Ditto.

[TMA_1]

oooooh I think somebody has envy for the U.S. looking at you ACE ;) and cant wait for another 200 page post.lol

[SurlyPIG]

Hehe, I still prefer good ol' Canada...Though I must admit, at times I envy your taxes and your weather...